beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. A person who intends to extend a building the aggregate floor area of which does not exceed 85 square meters in the facts charged shall file a prior report with the competent authority as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport;
Nevertheless, on November 2016, the Defendant extended the building of the board building with a floor area of 4.44 square meters without filing the above report at the Defendant’s house located in the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.
2. The main sentence of Article 11(1) of the Building Act that intends to construct or repair a building shall obtain permission from the Special Self-Governing City Mayor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.
Article 14 (1) 1 of the Building Act provides that "a building subject to permission under Article 11 shall be deemed to have been granted a building permit if the total floor area of the building falls under extension, remodeling, or reconstruction within 85 square meters, if it is reported to the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun
Meanwhile, Article 111 subparag. 1 of the Building Act provides that “A person who fails to file a report or application under Article 14 or files a false report or application” shall be punished.
In light of the purport of the above provisions, a person subject to punishment pursuant to Article 111 subparagraph 1 of the Building Act is a person who constructed or repaired a building without reporting, etc. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (a) the first corrective order was issued on January 4, 2017 to require E to restore the illegal building from its original condition; (b) on March 3, 2017, the perpetrator was changed from E to the defendant; and (c) the second corrective order was issued to the same effect as the defendant; and (d) the defendant was also stated in the written accusation. The first corrective order was issued with the knowledge of the violation of the building, not the defendant, but the defendant's husband, and then the first corrective order was issued.